If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post. To do so, click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please do not post any copyrighted images or content without permission from the owner of those images or content. If you are unsure if an image or content is copyright protected, do not post it. When posting images from Google's image search, be sure to utilize the ability to filter by Usage Rights. This is located under Tools > Usage Rights. Any materials that infringe on any owner's Intellectual Property rights will be promptly removed.

Rarely are the comics ever held true to television. For good reason. Most of it doesn't translate well, especially in dollars. Take Watchmen for example. Think about what it might have cost them to stay true to the source material and end the film with a giant alien squid destroying Manhattan instead of the bomb. Now, beyond the cost, tell me that the bomb wasn't simply an easier, smarter solution. In the comics, the giant alien squid is fine. On telelvision/film it'd come across as exceedingly stupid.

I never read the full Preacher line. Just Gone to Texas, but it was so long ago I don't even remember it. This is essentially brand new to me. But what they're doing is working.

If people wouldn't get the end of the comic, why is the comic so popular and why bother making the movie to begin with? I disagree with that thinking and have had the same discussion with friends to no avail. I feel watchmen stayed very close to the comic and the end should have been the original ending. I don't think cost of a dead giant octopus would have put weight a nuke by all that much.

Preacher has a close "feel" the the original material except for the entire story. Nothing. Nothing at all is by the book. It is funny. It is crazy. It's shot well. It's not Preacher.

AMC's 'Preacher'

You're crossing streams. I said that the comic ending would have been exceptionally more expensive and with a lesser payoff because it would be more difficult to relate to from the perspective of an average viewer (who we need to presume has not read the novel). The bomb was a simpler, safer, more easily understandable conclusion.

Or try this -- talk to anyone who watched Watchmen that didn't read the novel. Tell them the original ending and ask which they'd prefer if all things are equal. Same movie. Two endings. Which is better?

As to Preacher, like I said, I can't speak to what they are or aren't changing, but what they're doing is great television. Compelling storylines, relatable characters, clear character progression/regression, etc.

You're crossing streams. I said that the comic ending would have been exceptionally more expensive and with a lesser payoff because it would be more difficult to relate to from the perspective of an average viewer (who we need to presume has not read the novel). The bomb was a simpler, safer, more easily understandable conclusion.

Or try this -- talk to anyone who watched Watchmen that didn't read the novel. Tell them the original ending and ask which they'd prefer if all things are equal. Same movie. Two endings. Which is better?

As to Preacher, like I said, I can't speak to what they are or aren't changing, but what they're doing is great television. Compelling storylines, relatable characters, clear character progression/regression, etc.

I'm saying the ending wouldn't have been more expensive.. I'm not crossing streams. I'm disagreeing with your comment which has not one single truth to it.

As for the pay off..... The source material is what got the movie made to begin with. Why bother making it if you're going to change it? Rip it off then. Don't call it Watchmen. Call it something else. Change the characters too.

I liked the Watchmen movie. Ending and all. Because it had the feel of the comic. It looked great. Some scenes back grounds and all were lifted straight from the book. I'm pretty sure for the special edition DVD, they may have had the alternate ending. I'll have to check that .

As for your take on Preacher, then great. Call it Garth Ennis's Texas church show. Because it isn't Preacher.

Spoiler: {option}

Tulip isn't black, nor did she live with Jesse as a child, Jesse didn't pray for his dad's death, Arsface didn't shoot a girl in the head, sheriff Root isn't nice, Quincannon doesn't win Jesse's land in a bet, Genesis didn't live in a coffee can, you don't find out that Cassidy is/was a drug addict and runs away with Tulip until close to the end of the books...there's just so much they have already changed from the book that it's not even the same story at all. Entertaining yes. Preacher? No

AMC's 'Preacher'

Short answer -- because not every filmmaker or director or producer shares the same vision you do of holding truer than true to source contents. Some -- most, really -- enjoy the source enough to want to bring their adaptation of it to life. They add and subtract as they see fit. Sometimes they butcher it, sometimes not. But I can't think of anyone who has produced non-original content and not changed something.

Annoyed to hear that they changed the entire story because they felt the source material wasn't enough to span their desired goal of a certain amount of seasons. Which is crazy. Theres soooo much they could have done with this.

I get the character development that they were aiming for and I hope that's all the first season was about. Hopefully from here on out they stay at least relatively close to the source material.

I like the acting, I like the look, I like the feel, I just hate how they changed things to seemingly drag the show out to reach some sort of desired episode total, because at the beginning I got the impression that they said there was too much source material and that they couldn't cover it all, or put it on television..

I can't believe I'm still giving this show a chance. Holy fuck. They said they wanted to shift direction and appease the true fans of the books, by getting into the source material. First two episodes we're fucking dog shit and had zero to do with the source material.

I used to stick up for Seth Rogan. I thought he was a funny dude. Fuck him now. Fucking stoner has made up his own Preacher story. Source material? What in THE FUCK were you reading????